subject:"\[jira\] \[Commented\] \(HBASE\-15921\) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it"

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-14 Thread Hudson (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15576314#comment-15576314
 ] 

Hudson commented on HBASE-15921:


FAILURE: Integrated in Jenkins build HBase-Trunk_matrix #1786 (See 
[https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-Trunk_matrix/1786/])
HBASE-15921 Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it 
(zhangduo: rev 3fe7508295255c44dcdadfde460e4be5f829cb63)
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncTable.java
* (edit) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/ConnectionUtils.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/ZKClusterRegistry.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncTableRegionLocatorImpl.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncConnectionImpl.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncTableRegionLocator.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncRpcRetryingCallerFactory.java
* (edit) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/ConnectionImplementation.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncSingleRequestRpcRetryingCaller.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/ClusterRegistry.java
* (edit) 
hbase-common/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/util/ReflectionUtils.java
* (add) 
hbase-server/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/TestAsyncSingleRequestRpcRetryingCaller.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncConnection.java
* (add) 
hbase-server/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/TestAsyncTable.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/ClusterRegistryFactory.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncConnectionConfiguration.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncRegionLocator.java
* (add) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/AsyncTableImpl.java
* (edit) 
hbase-common/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/util/CollectionUtils.java
* (edit) 
hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/RpcRetryingCallerImpl.java


> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: Client
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
>  Labels: asynchronous
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v10.patch, HBASE-15921-v11.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, HBASE-15921-v4.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921-v6.patch, HBASE-15921-v7.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v8.patch, HBASE-15921-v9.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-14 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15575283#comment-15575283
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 10s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 9s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
3s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 1s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m 
56s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m 
29s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m 38s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in master has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 53s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 8s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m 
13s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 2s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m 2s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m 
57s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m 
29s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
26m 29s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 
28s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
15s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 54s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 39s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 53s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 91m 4s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m 
34s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 139m 20s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests | 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.TestAccessController2 |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.TestCellACLWithMultipleVersions |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.TestCellACLs |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.TestWithDisabledAuthorization |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.TestAccessController |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=1.11.2 Server=1.11.2 Image:yetus/hbase:7bda515 |
| JIRA Patch URL | 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12833346/HBASE-15921-v11.patch 
|
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-15921 |
| Optional Tests |  asflicense  javac  javadoc  unit  findbugs  hadoopcheck  
hbaseanti  checkstyle  compile  |
| uname | Linux bcdba226a1c4 3.13.0-95-generic #142-Ubuntu SMP Fri Aug 12 
17:00:09 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-14 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15574918#comment-15574918
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Oh the v10 patch missed some modifications before. Let me check...

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v10.patch, HBASE-15921-v2.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v3.patch, HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v6.patch, HBASE-15921-v7.patch, HBASE-15921-v8.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v9.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-14 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15574582#comment-15574582
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 21s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 21s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
38s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 57s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
21s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
45s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m 42s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in master has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 55s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 8s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m 
28s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 51s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m 51s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
18s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
52s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m 2s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
31m 37s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 
17s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
26s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 53s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 41s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 55s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 99m 51s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 109m 45s 
{color} | {color:red} root in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m 
55s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 283m 5s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.wal.TestWALFiltering |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.wal.TestWALSplitCompressed |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.TestZooKeeper |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.wal.TestBoundedRegionGroupingStrategy |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestReplicasClient |
|   |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-13 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15573685#comment-15573685
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

{quote}
Is there any overlap in the test failures? There does not seem to be.
{quote}
I haven't change any existing logic in this patch. The timed out UTs are always 
timed out in pre-commit...

{quote}
How does the client use zookeeper in async now Duo Zhang? We do not use a 
watcher but we keep connection open to zk?
{quote}

Keep a connection to zk. Let's open another issue to discuss the zk part. I 
think we could implement the client side zk related logic alone as it is much 
simpler than the server side.

Let me write a release note.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921-v6.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v7.patch, HBASE-15921-v8.patch, HBASE-15921-v9.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-13 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15572567#comment-15572567
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Is there any overlap in the test failures? There does not seem to be. 

How does the client use zookeeper in async now [~Apache9]? We do not use a 
watcher but we keep connection open to zk?

Needs a release note outlining what is being added here, that it a subset of 
API to be filled out in other issues. Let me read latest patch. I was +1 on 
earlier versions. This is great stuff.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921-v6.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v7.patch, HBASE-15921-v8.patch, HBASE-15921-v9.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-13 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15571666#comment-15571666
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 14s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 15s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
35s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 11s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
3s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m 
32s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
20s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 59s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 11s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m 
27s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 13s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m 13s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
1s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m 
35s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
28m 2s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 
28s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
24s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 55s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 40s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 54s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 87m 57s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m 
35s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 140m 17s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests | hadoop.hbase.regionserver.TestHRegionWithInMemoryFlush |
| Timed out junit tests | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestReplicasClient |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestScannerTimeout |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestIncrementFromClientSideWithCoprocessor 
|
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestHCM |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=1.11.2 Server=1.11.2 Image:yetus/hbase:7bda515 |
| JIRA Patch URL | 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12833083/HBASE-15921-v9.patch |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-15921 |
| Optional Tests |  asflicense  javac  javadoc  unit  findbugs  hadoopcheck  
hbaseanti  checkstyle  compile  |
| uname | Linux 679df723d061 3.13.0-92-generic #139-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jun 28 
20:42:26 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-13 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15571057#comment-15571057
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

[~stack] [~enis] PTAL. Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921-v6.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v7.patch, HBASE-15921-v8.patch, HBASE-15921-v9.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-12 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15570206#comment-15570206
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Ah I have removed the watcher related code in the new patch as we do not need 
it right now. And if we want to do async access to zk then curator is much 
simpler than our zk stuff as client only need to read a small set of data on 
zk. Now the client depend on Zookeeperwatcher, MasterAddressTrack, and maybe 
MetaTableAccessor. And for every class we only use  a very small part, it is a 
pain to modify such big classes...

And for now as we do not use async nor watcher, I can remove the curator 
dependency. We can continue this discussion in a new jira.

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921-v6.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v7.patch, HBASE-15921-v8.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-12 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15569696#comment-15569696
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

In rb we discuss curator in client. Our RecoverableZK does the stamping of a 
version into the data so we recognize missed updates, a facility that curator 
does not have (why don't we rely on the znode version number for figuring if we 
missed an edit -- because it is out of band rather than inline as RecoverableZK 
does it?).

Up in rb too, we talked about difference between how we use zk in client where 
we have a watcher to notify us on changes compared to asynchbase which just 
opens connection to zk, reads what it needs, then closes it... only reopening 
if it needs to because of some change in circumstance. This to me seems 
simpliest implementation we could have in client for zk use  but [~Apache9] you 
say registering for watchers makes our code cleaner?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921-v6.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v7.patch, HBASE-15921-v8.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-12 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15567932#comment-15567932
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 15s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 18s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
29s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 4m 28s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
23s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
39s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m 
53s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 38s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 7s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m 
21s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 4m 11s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 4m 11s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
20s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
41s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m 3s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
28m 59s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 
11s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
41s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 54s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 41s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 56s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 81m 46s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 86m 13s {color} 
| {color:red} root in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m 
53s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 238m 43s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFromClientSide |
|   | 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestRestoreSnapshotFromClientWithRegionReplicas |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestMobCloneSnapshotFromClient |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestHTableMultiplexer |
|   |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-11 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15567669#comment-15567669
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

[~enis] Any other concerns?

For curator, I think it will simplify our client code a lot as we do not need 
to deal with retry and recovery, and the API is more friendly. And the client 
only needs to access a small set of data on zk, you can see the ClusterRegistry 
interface in patch v6, that's all. So I think implement the client logic 
separately is good for both the client and server implementations as the zk 
implementation does not need to deal with client any more.

And I know that sometimes we need the client API to do something at server 
side, but I think this is another story. We can discuss it later. And the 
client side zk related implementation is not very complicated so if we decide 
to remove the dependency of curator it is OK to reimplement it at that time.

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921-v6.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v7.patch, HBASE-15921-v8.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-11 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15565918#comment-15565918
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 16s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 7s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m 
56s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 30s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
15s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
36s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m 
54s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 42s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 8s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m 
7s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 46s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m 46s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
16s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
44s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m 2s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
27m 52s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 1m 
58s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
28s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 43s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 39s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 55s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 77m 1s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 82m 0s {color} 
| {color:red} root in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m 
53s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 225m 31s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFromClientSide |
|   | 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestRestoreSnapshotFromClientWithRegionReplicas |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestMobCloneSnapshotFromClient |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestMobSnapshotCloneIndependence |
|   |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-10 Thread Sean Busbey (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15562926#comment-15562926
 ] 

Sean Busbey commented on HBASE-15921:
-

{quote}
Sean Busbey I think yetus could do better here. As I changed the pom.xml, yetus 
will execute some checks at root. The problem is, if we decide to run command 
at root, I do not think we need to run command in other modules then?
{quote}

yeah, that's correct. I thought Yetus already skipped modules when running at 
root, so I'd want to confirm this isn't something in our personality before 
filing something upstream.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921-v6.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-10 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15561598#comment-15561598
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 15s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 16s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
25s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 4m 8s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
23s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
52s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
16s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 3m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 9s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m 
23s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 48s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m 48s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
18s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
44s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m 2s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
31m 49s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 
26s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m 
24s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 3m 27s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 2m 4s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 9s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 91m 7s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 87m 34s {color} 
| {color:red} root in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 0m 57s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch generated 140 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 254m 50s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestReplicasClient |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestTableSnapshotScanner |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestMobCloneSnapshotFromClient |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestMobSnapshotCloneIndependence |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestSnapshotCloneIndependence |
|   |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-09 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15559755#comment-15559755
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

{noformat}


Running unit tests




cd /testptch/hbase/hbase-common
mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/home/jenkins/yetus-m2/hbase-master-patch-1 
-DHBasePatchProcess -PrunAllTests clean test -fae > 
/testptch/patchprocess/patch-unit-hbase-common.txt 2>&1
Elapsed:   1m 37s
cd /testptch/hbase/hbase-client
mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/home/jenkins/yetus-m2/hbase-master-patch-1 
-DHBasePatchProcess -PrunAllTests clean test -fae > 
/testptch/patchprocess/patch-unit-hbase-client.txt 2>&1
Elapsed:   0m 53s
cd /testptch/hbase/hbase-server
mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/home/jenkins/yetus-m2/hbase-master-patch-1 
-DHBasePatchProcess -PrunAllTests clean test -fae > 
/testptch/patchprocess/patch-unit-hbase-server.txt 2>&1
Elapsed:  93m 11s
cd /testptch/hbase
mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/home/jenkins/yetus-m2/hbase-master-patch-1 
-DHBasePatchProcess -PrunAllTests clean test -fae > 
/testptch/patchprocess/patch-unit-root.txt 2>&1
Elapsed:  95m 44s



 Determining number of ASF License errors




cd /testptch/hbase/hbase-common
mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/home/jenkins/yetus-m2/hbase-master-patch-1 
-DHBasePatchProcess -fn apache-rat:check > 
/testptch/patchprocess/patch-asflicense-hbase-common.txt 2>&1
Elapsed:   0m 13s
cd /testptch/hbase/hbase-client
mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/home/jenkins/yetus-m2/hbase-master-patch-1 
-DHBasePatchProcess -fn apache-rat:check > 
/testptch/patchprocess/patch-asflicense-hbase-client.txt 2>&1
Elapsed:   0m 11s
cd /testptch/hbase/hbase-server
mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/home/jenkins/yetus-m2/hbase-master-patch-1 
-DHBasePatchProcess -fn apache-rat:check > 
/testptch/patchprocess/patch-asflicense-hbase-server.txt 2>&1
Elapsed:   0m 12s
cd /testptch/hbase
mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/home/jenkins/yetus-m2/hbase-master-patch-1 
-DHBasePatchProcess -fn apache-rat:check > 
/testptch/patchprocess/patch-asflicense-root.txt 2>&1
Elapsed:   0m 21s


There appear to be 140 ASF License warnings after applying the patch.
{noformat}

[~busbey] I think yetus could do better here. As I changed the pom.xml, yetus 
will execute some checks at root. The problem is, if we decide to run command 
at root, I do not think we need to run command in other modules then?

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921-v5.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-09 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15559708#comment-15559708
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 17s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 18s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
20s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 42s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
14s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
35s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m 
53s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 40s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 8s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m 
7s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 34s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m 34s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
14s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
37s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m 3s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
26m 20s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 1m 
53s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
18s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 40s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 37s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 53s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 93m 11s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 95m 44s {color} 
| {color:red} root in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 0m 57s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch generated 140 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 254m 2s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestReplicasClient |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFromClientSide |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.procedure.TestZKProcedureControllers |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFromClientSide3 |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestTableSnapshotScanner |
|   |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-08 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15558543#comment-15558543
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 19s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 22s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
21s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 33s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
13s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
40s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m 
55s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 40s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 8s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m 
8s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 32s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m 32s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
13s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
39s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m 3s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
28m 38s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 
9s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
50s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 3m 11s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 44s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 57s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 95m 46s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 83m 46s {color} 
| {color:red} root in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 0m 58s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch generated 140 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 248m 34s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestReplicasClient |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestMetaWithReplicas |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestFromClientSide3 |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestMobRestoreSnapshotFromClient |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.TestServerSideScanMetricsFromClientSide |
|   |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-08 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15558459#comment-15558459
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

skimmed the patch on RB and it looks great, will check it carefully later when 
time allows :-) [~Apache9]

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-08 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15558114#comment-15558114
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

The files lacks ASF license header are all in hbase-protocol-shaded... We 
should skip ASF license header check for the generated files? [~stack]

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921-v4.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-08 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15558003#comment-15558003
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 16s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 20s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
34s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 4m 9s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
28s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
51s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
22s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 50s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 9s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m 
26s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 47s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 3m 47s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
21s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
43s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m 2s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
32m 16s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 
21s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m 
18s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 3m 40s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 2m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 6s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 81m 3s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 88m 50s {color} 
| {color:red} root in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} asflicense {color} | {color:red} 0m 55s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch generated 140 ASF License warnings. {color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 246m 36s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests | 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.procedure.TestModifyTableProcedure |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.procedure.TestServerCrashProcedure |
|   | 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.procedure.TestMasterProcedureSchedulerConcurrency
 |
|   | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.procedure.TestRestoreSnapshotProcedure |
|   |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-08 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15557713#comment-15557713
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

I suggest that only do single operations and multi get in AsyncTable directly.

For batch operation, use something like BufferedMutator. And for scan, we will 
have a scan method in AsyncTable but the logic will be implemented in other 
classes.

And we will not have a unified retry logic. For different operations, we will 
implement different retry logics. I only implemented the retry logic for single 
operations here, and I think the following operations should have its own retry 
logic.

1. multi get
2. batch mutation
3. scan

And I think the retry logics for timelined read operations should also be 
implemented separately. Not sure. Will think about it when we finish the above 
works.

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-10-08 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15557657#comment-15557657
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

[~stack] [~carp84] [~chenheng] FYI.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-23 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15515740#comment-15515740
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

{quote}
this "start from beginning" could be a regroup-and-submit action only for the 
failed actions.
{quote}

Yes, exactly.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-23 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15515709#comment-15515709
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

bq. For batch operation, I think we should still start from beginning as 
regions maybe moved...
Yes, but if we still use a unified array for the overall results, this "start 
from beginning" could be a regroup-and-submit action only for the *failed* 
actions.

bq. And for scan, as now we have heartbeat which makes it different from other 
operations, we would better revisit the timeout semantic of it.
Agreed, async scan is something I still haven't touched in my local 
implementation.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-23 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15515692#comment-15515692
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Yes the 'start from beginning' is only for single request.

For batch operation, I think we should still start from beginning as regions 
maybe moved and seems we have an optimization that group requests by RS? But as 
you said, we need to keep track of suceeded and ongoing sub tasks to avoid 
unnecessary resubmition.

For scan, the retry is per rpc call I think. We do not need to reopen a 
scanner... And for scan, as now we have heartbeat which makes it different from 
other operations, we would better revisit the timeout semantic of it.

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-23 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15515676#comment-15515676
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

+1 on open another JIRA to complete the zk refactoring work.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-23 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15515674#comment-15515674
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Generally, +1 on do retry at one place and have an operation timeout for the 
whole operation.

Specially, I think we should discuss about single, batch and scan request 
separately, when talking about "always restart from beginning":
1. For single request like Get/Mutation(Put/Append/Increment/Delete), yes each 
retry should start from beginning
2. For batch request, assume we will still group the actions into RS groups, I 
think the retry should be per-group level, rather than all restart from 
beginning on one group failure
3. For (the real, multiple rows, not Get) scan request, assume we still keep 
recording {{nextCallSeqId}}, we should restart from it rather than from the 
very beginning

Or please let me know if you meant something else for "always restart from 
beginning". Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-22 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15515277#comment-15515277
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

And I think the refactoring work on zk could be done in another issue, and also 
we should fix the findbugs warnings. We should not write to a static field in a 
non-static method.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-22 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15515258#comment-15515258
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Let's talk about the retry and timeout logic.

In general, I think we should only do retry at one place, which means, we 
always restart from the beginning. We can config different timeout values for 
different stages, but the actual timeout when executing the operation will also 
be limited by the whole operation timeout config. This could simplify our 
logic. For example, we do not need to implement retry logic in rpc(Yeah I have 
just removed the reconnect logic in NettyRpcConnection). And it is also much 
easier for us to implement the backoff logic.

What do you think? [~stack] [~carp84] [~chenheng].

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-22 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15513236#comment-15513236
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 16s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 24 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 18s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
1s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 3m 58s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m 
53s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 1m 
57s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 0m 35s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-common in master has 1 extant Findbugs warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 3m 16s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 9s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 4m 
58s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 4m 21s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 4m 21s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 2m 
9s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 2m 
6s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} xml {color} | {color:green} 0m 2s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch has no ill-formed XML file. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 0m 46s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch causes 80 errors with Hadoop v2.4.0. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 1m 27s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch causes 80 errors with Hadoop v2.4.1. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 2m 10s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch causes 80 errors with Hadoop v2.5.0. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 2m 52s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch causes 80 errors with Hadoop v2.5.1. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 3m 36s 
{color} | {color:red} The patch causes 80 errors with Hadoop v2.5.2. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 2m 
8s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Skipped patched modules with no Java source: . {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 1m 5s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-client generated 1 new + 0 unchanged - 0 fixed = 1 
total (was 0) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 3m 3s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 43s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-common in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 53s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 91m 4s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 20s 
{color} | {color:green} hbase-rsgroup in the patch passed. {color} |
|

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-22 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15512701#comment-15512701
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Yes, as I said in the comment, I haven't implement back off calculation and 
timeout yet.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-22 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15512684#comment-15512684
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the retry exhausted logic is missing?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-21 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15510129#comment-15510129
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

https://github.com/Apache9/hbase/blob/asynclocator/hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/async/ZKClusterRegistry.java

Much simpler...

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-21 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15509680#comment-15509680
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

I was misled by the current zh implementation in HBase...

The common way of using zookeeper is cache the data at client side and use 
watcher to update the cached data. So we do not need to implement a client that 
read data from zookeeper asynchronously. Instead, just use the NodeCache or 
TreeCache or whatever cache  in curator to keep the data in memory, and get the 
data directly, no Future needed. The cache will updated in background. This 
will greatly simplify the logic.

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-21 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15509525#comment-15509525
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

https://github.com/Apache9/hbase/blob/asynclocator/hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/async/ZKAsyncRegistry.java

The async zookeeper registry, based on curator.

As the current locateRegionInMeta uses reversed scan, I think we need to find a 
slow but simple way to implement it first. Otherwise we need to implement 
asynchronous scan even if we only want to implement a AsyncTable with only get 
operation support...

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Heng Chen (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15508615#comment-15508615
 ] 

Heng Chen commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Another thing,  currently user could use his own thread pool for each HTable,   
see interface {{Connection.getTable(TableName tableName, ExecutorService pool) 
}},   so AP support that we could pass one pool into it.   And we should also 
support this feature, i think it is useful in many cases.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Heng Chen (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15508572#comment-15508572
 ] 

Heng Chen commented on HBASE-15921:
---

{quote}
IMHO, current AP is still blocking although it uses multiple threads to make 
the call in parallel, and the non-blocking/async work doesn't conflict but 
should corporate AP. Probably we should abstract some common methods out of 
current AP and it will work. Agree?
{quote}

Agreed.  AP not just equals to one thread pool.  It has many logic in it,  
async rpc client could be corporate with ap. 


> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15508566#comment-15508566
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Yes, I think it's both ok to abstract an AsyncTable interface or just add some 
async interfaces in existing Table, I guess the former is more clear? which do 
you prefer? :-)

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15508561#comment-15508561
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

You are right Heng, and as I mentioned, this is a simple demo to show how we're 
trying to implement the async API. I have more implementation on hand but I'd 
like to get some consensus before uploading bunch of codes, and need time to 
rebase on master code base (as known, quite some code refactor on client part 
recently) :-)

I agree and it's true during our code development that there're quite some 
logic in AP could/should be reused, but also some change/enhancement required, 
such as for batch, with callback and Netty, we don't need those many threads in 
{{AsyncRequestFutureImpl}} any more, a for loop to send all callbacks out is 
enough, etc.

IMHO, current AP is still blocking although it uses multiple threads to make 
the call in parallel, and the non-blocking/async work doesn't conflict but 
should corporate AP. Probably we should abstract some common methods out of 
current AP and it will work. Agree?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15508516#comment-15508516
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

As said above, with the non-blocking rpc client, the logic will be completely 
different as we do not need an extra thread pool to execute blocking rpc call. 
So even if it is another AsyncProcess, we still need to rewrite most of the 
code...

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Heng Chen (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15508442#comment-15508442
 ] 

Heng Chen commented on HBASE-15921:
---

The patch [~carp84] supplied missed some thing but i think it has been 
implemented in AP
1.  How to deal with batch?  For batch puts,  how to control traffic?
2.  How to deal with replica calls?
3.  How to deal with retry and different Exception handling?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15508372#comment-15508372
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

If your goal is to implement the async client ASAP because you really need it 
then I think use sync call to fetch region location is acceptable.

And I still think on master we should try to implement a completely 
asynchronous client on master.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15508198#comment-15508198
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Demo patch is interesting. We don't want to build a separate AsyncTable 
Interface as per the [~jurmous] patch? The demo patch extends Table.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15507509#comment-15507509
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Our current client is bloated, hard to understand, uses too many threads, and 
is slow.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.demo.patch, HBASE-15921.patch, 
> HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15506952#comment-15506952
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Well, in our implementation,  we use sync call to get region location and then 
issue the async call to the target RS with callback. We assume region locating 
is a low-cost step and for long running client like in streaming the location 
will be cached with a big chance. Makes sense?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15506958#comment-15506958
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

bq. And now, I prefer that we can implement a simple AsyncTable that only 
supports get, put and delete in this issue as what Jurriaan Mous proposed 
initially

[~Apache9] This will be much easier, and the most complicated part lies in 
batch and scan. Will attach a demo patch soon.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15506214#comment-15506214
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

OK, we need HTable to read meta table when implementing RegionLocator. Dead 
lock...

And the location of meta table is fetched from zookeeper, so if we want a fully 
asynchronous client, we also need to use the asynchronous API of zookeeper.

Seems the proper way is to write a completely new asynchronous client that 
share nothing with the current synchronous client?

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15506124#comment-15506124
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Ah I found that, we need to implement async region locator first... Let me 
try...

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Phil Yang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15505973#comment-15505973
 ] 

Phil Yang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

{quote}
As for 'async scan', i have not think about it carefully, maybe return one 
Future Object for each call "next()" ?
{quote}
Talked with [~Apache9], we may have these options:
1: Use callback, when a Result is ready we run the callback provided by the 
user. But if we run the callback in the main loop, the callback must be simple. 
If users need complex logic, they must put the Result into their own 
thread(pool). And we may guarantee if the previous callback is not done, we can 
not run next row's callback.(It is simple if we have only one thread).
2: Like you said, for each next() we return a CompletableFuture. The first 
future is the first Result, the second is the second... We should keep the 
order if user call next for many times at first.
3: We return a future when the scanner init. And each time we get the Result 
from future, we also return a new CompletableFuture belonging to the next 
Result.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Heng Chen (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15505949#comment-15505949
 ] 

Heng Chen commented on HBASE-15921:
---

As for unified "sync scan" with AP,   we need to pass AP into ClientScanner,  
and use AP to submit callable then wait until results come back. The most work 
is around unify ScannerCallableWithReplicas with AP i think.

As for 'async scan',  i have not think about it carefully,  maybe return one 
Future Object for each call "next()" ?  

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15505932#comment-15505932
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

I think we need to design a new API for async scanner. Maybe something like 
grpc's StreamObserver?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Phil Yang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15505928#comment-15505928
 ] 

Phil Yang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

And we may need AsyncResultScanner?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Phil Yang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15505924#comment-15505924
 ] 

Phil Yang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

We have ClientAsyncPrefetchScanner which use a background thread loading cache 
again and again. Maybe it is enough for the first version of AsyncTable?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15505857#comment-15505857
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

And now, I prefer that we can implement a simple AsyncTable that only supports 
get, put and delete in this issue as what [~jurmous] proposed initially. We can 
build the basic infrastructure of the callable and retry using the async stub 
at the same time. Then we could see how we can generalize it to all the 
operations, especially for scan.

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-20 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15505765#comment-15505765
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

[~chenheng] I found a big problem of your plan. How do you deal with scan? I do 
not think it is easy to unify scan into AsyncProcess...

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-18 Thread Yu Li (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15501429#comment-15501429
 ] 

Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Thanks for the reference here [~Apache9], and sorry for the late response 
(don't want to use 11-11 as excuse but really kind of exhausted preparing for 
it...)

I've noticed that there're some good refactoring work done recently on the 
RpcClient part, so I need some more time to do some code rebase and give some 
brief demo later (I think some demo codes would help to understand than simply 
words.:-)).

Basically, our implementation based on PB's {{RpcCallback}} interface, but to 
be honest, we don't take much consideration of region replica part for now 
especially for the batch request. And we support callback and future separately 
rather than a mature interface like ListenableFuture or CompletableFuture. So I 
believe there're still quite some discussion in need but I'll supply a simple 
demo first, ASAP.

I've also noticed the work [~chenheng] is doing about unifying all operations 
into AsyncProcess, but when I did the async table implementation based on 
branch-1, I truly found AsyncProcess complicated and hard to coordinate all 
async logic in, so I guess we need more discussion here also. Anyway, let me 
prepare the sample patch first.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15489255#comment-15489255
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

I think we need to redesign the retry and callable logic since now we have 
callback support.

[~liyu] I know you guys are implementing async table on your own HBase branch, 
can you share your experience?

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Heng Chen (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15487675#comment-15487675
 ] 

Heng Chen commented on HBASE-15921:
---

After unified,  lots of callables could be removed.   We could control retry in 
AsyncProcess.  The total logical should be clear.  

As for AsyncProcess,  it is complicated but also powerful,  all replica logic,  
traffic control, retry logic etc.  has been implemented in it,  and the AP has 
been existed for all released versions,  we could say it is stable.  What we 
need is to do some refactor for it.  It is not a good idea to just abandon it. 

Something i worried about with unification is performance,  i will do it in 
HBASE-16625

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15487625#comment-15487625
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Sorry, this remark was supposed to go w/ the suggestion that we need to redo 
RetryingCallable.

Agree AsyncProcess is hard to grok.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15487623#comment-15487623
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

I've been in here over the last week or so. The variety of Callables is 
stunning (Nonced, Cancellable, Retrying, Master, Abstract, Base) and then the 
various hierarchies with duplicated logic in each branch adds bloat and 
incomprehensibility.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15486708#comment-15486708
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

But we should not use another thread pool to implement AsyncProcess if we 
already have async stub... We do not need to block, we have callback now...

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Heng Chen (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15486670#comment-15486670
 ] 

Heng Chen commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Yeah, actually ap not use async rpc stub because it has it's own threadPool.  
That's due to some logical such as replica call schedule will still pend the 
thread.   So IMO async rpc stub is not enough to implement async table.  But AP 
is async in natural,  and it has been used to implements async interface for 
multi actions.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15486656#comment-15486656
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

In fact, we do not need to thread pool to execute the request with async rpc 
stub(maybe we still need a thread to trigger retry), so the implementation will 
be greatly different... The whole {{RetryingCallable}} should be redesigned and 
reimplemented...

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Heng Chen (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15486626#comment-15486626
 ] 

Heng Chen commented on HBASE-15921:
---

yeah,  AP is complicated but powerful,  just need some refactor job.  And after 
HBASE-16593, we could remove some classes in client to make the logical be more 
clear.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15486617#comment-15486617
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

But to be honest, the AsyncProcess is too complicated... Maybe we'd better 
write a new class to replace AsyncProcess?

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Heng Chen (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15486558#comment-15486558
 ] 

Heng Chen commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Awkward!   Just notice the issue here.  As [~Apache9] said, yes,  that is my 
plan, AsyncProcess is a good choice for AsyncTable,  it has lots of 
optimizations and has been tested during all release versions.  

BTW.  Very sorry to find this issue so late. 

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-09-13 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15486541#comment-15486541
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

I think the work here is related to [~chenheng]'s work in HBASE-16593. If we 
can unify all operations with AsyncProcess, then change AsyncProcess to use 
async rpc stub and expose CompletableFuture as return value, then the 
implementation of an async table is already there. A simple wrapper can give us 
a AsyncTable.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-08-16 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15423837#comment-15423837
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} patch {color} | {color:red} 0m 4s {color} 
| {color:red} HBASE-15921 does not apply to master. Rebase required? Wrong 
Branch? See https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.3.0/precommit-patchnames 
for help. {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| JIRA Patch URL | 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12807113/HBASE-15921.v1.patch |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-15921 |
| Console output | 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/3116/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.3.0   http://yetus.apache.org |


This message was automatically generated.



> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-08-16 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15423827#comment-15423827
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

OK, you use it in this patch...

I left a comment on rb, I do not think it is a good idea to jump over the stub 
layer of protobuf to call a RpcChannel directly, the method name mapping is 
fragile, and we also eliminate the type check...

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-06-09 Thread Gary Helmling (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15323410#comment-15323410
 ] 

Gary Helmling commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Yeah, I understand and agree with the motivation there.  We definitely want to 
be sure that all existing tests pass with AsyncTableImpl.  My point is just 
that changing the default implementation returned by 
ConnectionImplementation.getTable() shouldn't be done yet.  A configuration 
option changing the implementation used seems like the way to go.  After 
AsyncTableImpl has seen some real world usage we can look at dropping HTable.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-06-09 Thread Jurriaan Mous (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15323369#comment-15323369
 ] 

Jurriaan Mous commented on HBASE-15921:
---

The primary reason I made the new TableImpl because I wanted to run all 
existing Tests on table to guarantee AyncTable is working correctly with all 
exotic conditions being tested. It would be too much work to duplicate all 
table test code and convert it to async. I wanted to also see how TableImpl 
behaves in performance tests before deciding definite strategy. That's why 
HTable is not yet removed in current latest patch. We could indeed introduce a 
way to keep both in with a configuration and also test both while TableImpl 
stabilizes. 

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-06-09 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15323201#comment-15323201
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

bq. Why we let out EventExecutor? Especially given it a netty class. Can we 
contain the fact that the implementation is netty-based?

[~jurmous] A version of this has come up over in HBASE-15978 FYI.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-06-09 Thread Gary Helmling (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15323180#comment-15323180
 ] 

Gary Helmling commented on HBASE-15921:
---

{quote}
The replacement of HTable by TableImpl comes later?
It is already replaced at getTable in Connection in this patch. I want to make 
sure the performance is ok and then I find a solution for the remaining HTable 
refs.
{quote}

So this patch completely removes access to HTable from ConnectionImplementation?

I haven't had time to look through the patch in detail, yet, but I don't think 
it's appropriate to remove the ability to use the current HTable implementation 
in this patch.  TableImpl needs to wait or be exposed in a different way than 
changing ConnectionImplementation.getTable().  AsyncTableImpl and HTable need 
to exist side by side for a while, giving a chance for issues to be worked out. 
 Performance is only one consideration.  For all of their problems, the current 
HTable and RpcClient code paths have had a lot of work invested in squashing 
bugs and bad behavior.  AsyncTableImpl needs to demonstrate a similar level of 
behavior before it becomes the only implementation.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-06-01 Thread Jurriaan Mous (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15311070#comment-15311070
 ] 

Jurriaan Mous commented on HBASE-15921:
---

{quote}
This has to be this way? (Lots of abstract classes...)
public abstract class AsyncRegionServerCallable extends 
AbstractRegionServerCallable
It probably has to be given you are coming into a convoluted hierarchy that has 
accreted over a long period of time. Was just wondering if could have a 
shallower hierarchy. No issue if can't be done easily... or has to wait till 
later after you've gotten your async client in.
Or, you just moved this existing class out to its own file?
{quote}

I have to add the abstract classes right now to share code between the sync and 
async variants. As usage of the sync variants are replaced with async variants 
we can remove the abstract versions again.

bq. AsyncTable returns Future only? Not CompletableFuture? Consumers won't be 
able to consume AsyncTable in an event-driven way? We need a callback?

This is indeed as [~Apache9] mentions the Netty variant with event driven 
methods.

bq. Why we let out EventExecutor? Especially given it a netty class. Can we 
contain the fact that the implementation is betty-based?

At the moment I use the event executors for (new/failed/succes) promise 
creation. I can take a fresh look at it to see if I can contain it more but am 
not sure if it is possible. 

bq. In successful future it has a class comment "25 * A Failed Response 
future"

Will fix it.

bq. Any chance of a note on how the PromiseKeepers work?

Yes I will. It is the async way to combine multiple calls. So it replaces the 
batch callback in places.

bq. The replacement of HTable by TableImpl comes later? 

It is already replaced at getTable in Connection in this patch. I want to make 
sure the performance is ok and then I find a solution for the remaining HTable 
refs.



Created review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/48152/

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-05-31 Thread Duo Zhang (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15309049#comment-15309049
 ] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15921:
---

[~stack] I think the Future here is the netty one? It has the same name with 
the JDK one but adds a lot of method to support event-driven.

[~jurmous] Could you please upload the patch to review board? It is too large 
to be reviewed here.

Thanks.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-05-31 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15308261#comment-15308261
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

Some notes after a quick scan of the patch (you might want to make use of the 
new ./dev-support/submit-patch.py util going forward... does put to issue and 
to rb at same time).

This has to be this way? (Lots of abstract classes...)

public abstract class AsyncRegionServerCallable extends 
AbstractRegionServerCallable

It probably has to be given you are coming into a convoluted hierarchy that has 
accreted over a long period of time. Was just wondering if could have a 
shallower hierarchy. No issue if can't be done easily... or has to wait till 
later after you've gotten your async client in.

Or, you just moved this existing class out to its own file?

AsyncTable returns Future only? Not CompletableFuture? Consumers won't be able 
to consume AsyncTable in an event-driven way?  We need a callback?

Why we let out EventExecutor? Especially given it a netty class. Can we contain 
the fact that the implementation is netty-based?

In successful future it has a class comment "25  * A Failed Response future"

The replacement of HTable by TableImpl comes later?

Any chance of a note on how the PromiseKeepers work?

[~Apache9] and [~mbertozzi], have a look here lads... you might have a comment 
or so.



> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-05-31 Thread stack (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15308165#comment-15308165
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-15921:
---

I can do perf compare when ready.

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-05-31 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15307641#comment-15307641
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 6 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 13s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 3m 
8s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 4s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed with JDK v1.8.0 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 49s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m 
48s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m 
26s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m 
53s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 54s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed with JDK v1.8.0 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 51s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 10s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m 
3s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 6s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m 6s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 49s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 0m 49s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m 
49s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m 
25s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green} 
26m 5s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 3m 
30s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javadoc {color} | {color:red} 3m 18s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-client-jdk1.8.0 with JDK v1.8.0 generated 7 new + 
13 unchanged - 0 fixed = 20 total (was 13) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m 3s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0 {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javadoc {color} | {color:red} 4m 17s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-client-jdk1.7.0_79 with JDK v1.7.0_79 generated 7 
new + 13 unchanged - 0 fixed = 20 total (was 13) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 59s 
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 1m 6s {color} | 
{color:red} hbase-client in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 33m 29s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m 
21s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 82m 47s {color} 
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Failed junit tests |

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-05-31 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15307315#comment-15307315
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-15921:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s 
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 6 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 12s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m 
50s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 2s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed with JDK v1.8.0 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 0m 49s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m 
48s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m 
28s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 2m 
49s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 51s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed with JDK v1.8.0 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 54s 
{color} | {color:green} master passed with JDK v1.7.0_79 {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 9s 
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} mvninstall {color} | {color:red} 0m 17s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-client in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} mvninstall {color} | {color:red} 0m 30s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} compile {color} | {color:red} 0m 21s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-client in the patch failed with JDK v1.8.0. {color} 
|
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} compile {color} | {color:red} 0m 42s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed with JDK v1.8.0. {color} 
|
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javac {color} | {color:red} 0m 21s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-client in the patch failed with JDK v1.8.0. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javac {color} | {color:red} 0m 42s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed with JDK v1.8.0. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} compile {color} | {color:red} 0m 16s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-client in the patch failed with JDK v1.7.0_79. 
{color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} compile {color} | {color:red} 0m 30s 
{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed with JDK v1.7.0_79. 
{color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javac {color} | {color:red} 0m 16s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-client in the patch failed with JDK v1.7.0_79. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} javac {color} | {color:red} 0m 30s {color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed with JDK v1.7.0_79. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 0m 
49s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m 
27s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m 
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 0m 34s 
{color} | {color:red} Patch causes 22 errors with Hadoop v2.4.0. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 1m 9s 
{color} | {color:red} Patch causes 22 errors with Hadoop v2.4.1. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 1m 43s 
{color} | {color:red} Patch causes 22 errors with Hadoop v2.5.0. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 2m 18s 
{color} | {color:red} Patch causes 22 errors with Hadoop v2.5.1. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:red} 2m 51s 
{color} | {color:red} Patch causes 22 errors with Hadoop v2.5.2. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red}

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15921) Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it

2016-05-31 Thread Jurriaan Mous (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15307278#comment-15307278
 ] 

Jurriaan Mous commented on HBASE-15921:
---

The scans are still done in the Sync way and should have the same performance 
on TableImpl and HTable

> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
>Assignee: Jurriaan Mous
> Attachments: HBASE-15921.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan 
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor 
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl 
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops 
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the 
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

81 matches

Mail list logo